The Luminous Landscape recently posted an article called “Nikon D3 / D300 Vs. Canon,” which is designed to share Michael’s experiences buying into Nikon DSLRs after shooting with Canon for many years. He’s not switching brands, he just felt that he had enough readers interested in Nikons that he should be more familiar with them.
This gives us a very valuable and rare kind of review, which is able to focus on ergonomics and usability comparisons. I’d recommend visiting LL and reading the whole thing. But if you want my summary, I’ll do that as well.
The feature comparison starts with mirror lock-up, criticizing Canon for not making it easily available, and criticizing Nikon for not letting you use the self-timer and mirror lock-up at the same time. Personally, that’s not a big issue for me.
But Michael’s second issue has long been my main complaint with Canon and one of the things that Nikon does well: auto ISO. Some recent Canons do have this, but it’s been a long time coming, and still isn’t as flexible as what Nikon has provided for years. Michael writes:
The way Nikon implements it is to allow the user to set the lowest ISO that he or she wishes to use, and also the highest. The lowest shutter speed for the camera to automatically use also may be preset.
From then on the camera, whether set to Aperture Priority, Manual, or full Program mode,the camera will adjust the exposure parameters as usual, but, when the light level falls so low that the camera’s minimum lens aperture is reached, and the shutter speed is as low as you have set it to go, the camera will then automatically increase the ISO as much as needed to fall within these parameters. The ISO being set is always visible on the top LCD as well as in the viewfinder.
He also takes the opportunity to briefly pixel peep and comment on the stunning high ISO performance of the Nikon D3, which is very drool-worthy if you ask me.
And then there’s the increasingly dreaded autofocus mode selector on the D3, which people seem to keep accidentally bumping, often switching the camera from autofocus to manual focus without meaning to. Michael reports that this has happened to him often as well (“at least a couple of times a day.”)
A few other differences between them, such as Nikon DSLRs showing you the number of photos remaining on the inserted memory card even when the camera is turned off, which Canon doesn’t do. And the high resolution LCD screen on the D3 and D300, which he describes as a useful improvement.
He prefers the Nikon method of implementing dual memory card slots, since both are CF; current Camera 1-series cameras have two slots, but one is SD, which complicates things for professional photographers.
He gives thumbs down to the lack of anti-dust vibration in the Nikon D3, but does mention that he hasn’t accumulated any dust at all after shooting 1,500 frames with it.
And in the end — after other comparisons which I’m skipping over — he’s surprised by how many advantages the new Nikon cameras have over Canon:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but after being away from Nikon for the better part of a decade and having been immersed in the Canon gestalt since then, I was frankly surprised at the extent to which current Nikon cameras offer feature and function advantages over Canon. While some of the ones mentioned above may not be relevant to any one photographer’s needs, there are bound to be several which can be real productivity aids, if not just downright fun to have and use.
I do have to say I’m pretty surprised at the importance he places on buying new cameras, however, especially considering that the site often seems to be more focused on good photography than random technological qubbles:
No pro is going to show up on a shoot with gear that’s two generations behind the competition, and few except the most skint amateurs are happy to sit on the sidelines while better tools become available.
I don’t really buy that. I don’t know about what a pro is going to do, because that’s not my world, but I’m perfectly happy with my now-aging Digital Rebel XT, even though I could afford to sell it and buy a newer model. And I’m sure there are tons of great photographers taking tons of great pictures with cheap old cameras.
We now have a bit of a sea change happening. Nikon has flexed its considerable muscle and with the D3 produced a camera that sends a clear challenge to Canon’s nearly decade-long dominance of the digital arena. The D300, though in many ways simply a logical progression from the D200, is a much better camera than its predecessor, and along with its superior sensor offers the pro and advanced amateur a set of features and functionality that is unmatched at the moment in Canon’s line up.
For its part the full-frame Nikon D3 is a direct challenge to Canon’s 1 Series, which has dominated the pro marketplace now for more than half a decade. The 1D MKIII is right in the D3′s bore sight, and the D3 matches it or surpasses it in IQ, sensitivity, and resolution.
Canon’s flagship the 1DsMKIII certainly is the currently king of the hill in terms of resolution, but if Nikon were to put a full frame chip with the D300′s pixel density into a D3 chassis they’d have a 24MP – 29MP camera that would likely satisfy a great many Nikonistas who have been lusting after a full frame pro camera to match Canon’s lead in resolution. If you were Nikon, wouldn’t you build one?
The next couple of years should be very interesting.
Hooray for interesting digital camera developments! It’s pretty amazing to think of all of the advances that have happened in just the last 10 years; can anyone imagine what we’ll have in just 10 more? Maybe intelligent robotic camera dogs that wander around, peeing on fire hydrants and taking pictures on their own, and transmitting those photos to our own personal satellites to avoid draconian privacy invasions by the government? Ah, the future…
